Category Archives: Half of the Story

A question to the USGS and NPR

Posted on by
Reply

“A question to the USGS and NPR“. Anthony Watts lays a geography smack-down on the U.S. Geological Survey’s Jane Ferrigno because in a National Public Radio interview because she blows an analogy for the volume of lost Antarctic ice. Excellent nit-picking Anthony!

This reinforces his new theme that scientists should leave the fancy talkin’ to impartial intellectuals such as himself.

No comment from Anthony on the statement in the same interview that “every ice front in the southern part of the Antarctic Peninsula is retreating.”

Wilkins Ice Sheet retreat since 1947. USGS news article 2409

Sea change in climate journalism: The Guardian and the D-word

Posted on by
Reply

“Sea change in climate journalism: The Guardian and the D-word“. It’s always interesting when Anthony tries to take the “high road.” Lately he’s been trying to get The Guardian to stop describing climate change denialists as “sceptics.”

They’re thinking about it. The money quote from The Guardian’s correspondence with him is this (emphasis mine):

The ’sceptics’ label is almost too generous a badge as very few are genuinely sceptical about the science but I think we have to accept the name is now common parlance.

Anthony ‘reciprocates’ by making a hollow call to “dial back and treat others with the same respect in conversation as you might treat dinner guests having a discussion at home.”

As he does on occasion, Anthony takes a moment to try to distance himself from his own posts:

My position has been that there is no debate that the earth has warmed over the past 100+ years, but that the magnitude of the measured warming and the cause(s) remain in debate. The question of whether such warming is beneficial or detrimental depends on who you ask. I’ll also point out that it took our modern society about 150 years of science and technology advances to get where we are now. Doing it cleaner and better won’t be an overnight solution either.

Royal Statistical Society backs “models and data in the public domain”

Posted on by
Reply

Royal Statistical Society backs “models and data in the public domain”. See the submissions by the Royal Chemical Society and Institute of Physics. Same general statement, same biased interpretation by Anthony Watts as damning.

There are, of course, passages in the Royal Statistical Society’s filing that don’t suit Anthony’s bias. This one gets to the nub of things:

The ability to verify models using publicly available data is regarded as being of much greater importance than the specific content of email exchanges between researchers.

The data is almost entirely publicly available already. The whole controversy boils down to quote-mining personal e-mails for rude comments.

This one’s also good, as it addresses denialist harassment:

It is also clearly unreasonable to require that any given scientist having published some research is then condemned to answer each and every question that might possibly arise from it.

Interestingly, the Royal Statistical Society doesn’t seem to have any concerns about the word “trick” that is so angrily discussed in denialist circles.

Royal Society of Chemistry backs sharing of data in contrast to Jones “standard practice” statement

Posted on by
Reply

“Royal Society of Chemistry backs sharing of data in contrast to Jones “standard practice” statement“. The Royal Society of Chemistry makes a general mom-and-apple pie statement in response to a request from the Parliamentary inquiry similar to the Institute of Physics just made. Anthony considers this another damning judgement. My translation: Yes, yes, t’s must be crossed and i’s must be dotted. Now leave us alone, you bitter letter-writing obsessive paranoids!

I do like this bit though (emphasis mine):

Authors generally protect their data until it has been peer-reviewed and published in a formal publication due to the competitive nature of research.

and this bit:

The issue of misinformation in the public domain must also be tackled. Just as the scientific community must be open with regard to their evidence base, those who disagree must also provide a clear and verifiable backing for their argument, if they wish their opinions to be given weight. When disagreements occur, the validity of the analysis must be established before credence can be given to any opinion.

2010-03-07 Update: I missed this enlightening excerpt from the RSC statement, but Rabbet Run didn’t.

Encouraging scientists to openly engage with the public can only be achieved if researchers are given the necessary backing in the face of any unfounded arguments against their work.

Flashback: U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend

Posted on by
Reply

“Flashback: U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend“. Anthony Watts posts this report from the New York Times on Global Warming back in 1989. It’s an inadvertent admission that the “MSM” were once “skeptical” about climate change. Hmm, wonder what happened?

Anthony intent is to show that Climatologist Dr. James Hansen has changed his scientific opinion and is thus a slippery fellow. But isn’t that actually a sign of scientific integrity? When the data evolves so should your understanding. Anthony also can’t resist a bit of Gore-bashing and some dark hints about “world policy” (code for the unseen commie world gubmint). Anthony also fails to note that the article in question refers to the US temperature record, not the global one. This is a long-standing denialist “trick”.

Here’s an entertaining quote from the article: “One aspect of the study that Dr. Hanson said was interesting was the finding that the urbanization of the United States has apparently not had a statistically significant effect on average temperature readings.” Even twenty years ago Anthony’s big idea had been disproven!

Archibald on stellar to climate linkage

Posted on by
Reply

“Archibald on stellar to climate linkage“. Anthony Watts offers a guest post by Australian oil geologist David Archibald about how solar influence on the Earth’s climate and interaction with cosmic rays explains everything. Even though the sun’s influencing factors have been emphatically trending toward cooling and the actual Earth’s climate has been emphatically trending towards warming. Nice Google clip art research David, those charts sure are wiggly.

Why do those ‘conclusive’ patterns have such crappy correlation? Why are you using such indirect proxies and flipping them around so casually? And did the Little Ice Age really last right up until 1900?

Breaking news: the Little Ice Age was 500 years long!

David Archibald, a “scientist working in the fields of climate and cancer research” (emphasis mine) believes that the “more carbon dioxide you put into the atmosphere, the more you are helping all plants on the planet to grow” (no need to add emphasis). David Archibald is a crank in two completely different areas of science? Nice…

CRUTEM3 error getting attention by Met Office

Posted on by
Reply

“CRUTEM3 error getting attention by Met Office“. Anthony Watts reports an error in temperature corrections has been found by a denialist nit-picker (John Graham-Cumming)!!! Thus ending global warming forever and also proving that scientists are stupid and evil. Naturally he expects his readers to scan the headline but ignore the details, because the details aren’t so helpful…

Anthony has to admit that “the error he found may lead to slightly less uncertainty” (emphasis naturally mine) but he immediately tries to counter this by claiming that “the magnitude of the uncertainty (especially in homogenization) is quite large”. This has a few unfortunate consequences for his argument.

  • The presumed deceitful “consensus” temperature trend is strengthened and not undermined by this nit.
  • Anthony allusion to the “magnitude of the uncertainty” again proves that he knows nothing about objective statistical analysis.

Here’s the trend in question:

    Climategate Minority Report

    Posted on by
    Reply

    “Climategate Minority Report“. Apparently Senator Jim Inhofe, the last flat-earther, and his fellow Republican members of a Senate committee have drawn some conclusions that suit their political interests about the out-of-context e-mails stolen from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) in Britain.

    It will be interesting to watch their “findings” fall apart under public discussion as everything they state has been already discussed at length and dismissed. “Honest broker” Anthony Watts is naturally all-in. Welcome to a noisy and meaningless re-run of November, 2009.

    2012-07-19 Update: Norfolk police have called off their investigation for procedural reasons, but state:

    “However, as a result of our inquiries, we can say that the data breach was the result of a sophisticated and carefully orchestrated attack on the CRU’s data files, carried out remotely via the internet. The offenders used methods common in unlawful internet activity to obstruct inquiries. There is no evidence to suggest that anyone working at or associated with the University of East Anglia was involved in the crime.”

    Met office pushes a surface temperature data “do over”

    Posted on by
    Reply

    “Met office pushes a surface temperature data “do over”. Anthony lays the ground for rejecting a proposed re-processing of global raw surface temperature data by Britain’s Meteorological Office. I suspect that the only temperature records Anthony likes are the ones that suit his purpose.

    While the administrative issues and contractual blockages that surround the global raw surface temperature data have been known for years, the overall usefulness of that data to scientists remains unchanged. But of course right-wing bloggers and media are reporting this proposed clean-up as a capitulation due to the “Climategate” conspiracy accusations.

    2009 paper confirming IPCC sea level conclusions withdrawn, mistakes cited

    Posted on by
    1

    “2009 paper confirming IPCC sea level conclusions withdrawn, mistakes cited“. Anthony Watts cites an article in the Guardian about the retraction of a paper that confirmed the sea level change predictions of the 2007 IPCC Report. Them scientists are always wrong!

    Welcome back Maldives? Nope.

    What Anthony doesn’t choose to draw attention to is that the paper’s errors were found by researchers who conclude that the predicted sea level rise will by 2100 will be 0.75m to 1.9m rather than 0.18m to 0.59m. This is a roughly three-fold increase, not the decrease that Anthony wants his readers to assume.